Another Texas school shooting

[cernjSHU]

You ignored my points yet again. Never mentioned hunting…you did. You think the other reasons are a “crock”…very scientific. All legitimate reasons, you don’t want to acknowledge.

I went over all your reasons. No real hunter hunts with an assault weapon. Do you know of any? You did not reply. As far as self defense, you think it is better when an intruder is coming in your house to go into the locked cabinet unlock it, get your magazine and grab that AR as opposed to reaching over the nightstand and grabbing. a handgun? So no it is not great for self defense. So there are no reasons where there exists as good alternatives or better . How many times do you want me to address this?

These weapons were designed to kill people. It is designed for war. I gave you what can be done with gun control to stop this. Ban all assault weapons, and a national registry and database for all firearms. You do these two things, You have yourself a safer society. Neither one violates the second amendment. Why is anyone against this? Moreover, if any person truly calls themselves a conservative, Ronald Regan backed the assault weapons ban.

 

[HALL85]

I went over all your reasons. No real hunter hunts with an assault weapon. Do you know of any? You did not reply. As far as self defense, you think it is better when an intruder is coming in your house to go into the locked cabinet unlock it, get your magazine and grab that AR as opposed to reaching over the nightstand and grabbing. a handgun? So no it is not great for self defense. So there are no reasons where there exists as good alternatives or better . How many times do you want me to address this?

These weapons were designed to kill people. It is designed for war. I gave you what can be done with gun control to stop this. Ban all assault weapons, and a national registry and database for all firearms. You do these two things, You have yourself a safer society. Neither one violates the second amendment. Why is anyone against this? Moreover, if any person truly calls themselves a conservative, Ronald Regan backed the assault weapons ban.

I've answered your questions previously:
- No, the AR-15 isn't designed for hunting. I never said it was and I don't know any gun owners that use it for this purpose. But keep repeating this line if it makes you happy.
- As I mentioned in an earlier post, all homes/properties are different. Maybe you should talk to an owner of one that has it for this reason. It may not be their first choice depending on defending their home, but they want it in their arsenal just in case. What if there is a van with several people that you see pulling up your driveway and the get out all armed?
- You never responded to my points that some owners but them to collect them. Some also buy them to go to the gun range to shoot them and practice marksmanship. Both legitimate reasons and these people do so responsibly.

Define "banning". All sales going forward? Turning all existing assault weapons in? I still don't know where you stand on this.

Where did i say I was a Conservative?

I'm a gun owner (one handgun), but maybe you should talk to and listen to law abiding gun owners a little more closely. They are more reasonable and definitely more responsible than you are making them out to be.

 

[cernjSHU]

I've answered your questions previously:
- No, the AR-15 isn't designed for hunting. I never said it was and I don't know any gun owners that use it for this purpose. But keep repeating this line if it makes you happy.
- As I mentioned in an earlier post, all homes/properties are different. Maybe you should talk to an owner of one that has it for this reason. It may not be their first choice depending on defending their home, but they want it in their arsenal just in case. What if there is a van with several people that you see pulling up your driveway and the get out all armed?
- You never responded to my points that some owners but them to collect them. Some also buy them to go to the gun range to shoot them and practice marksmanship. Both legitimate reasons and these people do so responsibly.

Define "banning". All sales going forward? Turning all existing assault weapons in? I still don't know where you stand on this.

Where did i say I was a Conservative?

I'm a gun owner (one handgun), but maybe you should talk to and listen to law abiding gun owners a little more closely. They are more reasonable and definitely more responsible than you are making them out to be.

1) I would say that collectors can collect them as long as they are made inoperable and still registered.
2) You made fun of my example of Tony Montana and then gave the Tony Montana example back to me as a justification. lol. How many legitimate people are worried about a band of people coming into their home? IS this Purge? Now I can see organized crime guys having this fear.
2) Firing at the range can be fun. I get it. It is fun to fire an M-16 as well. but, that is a guilty pleasure that must accede to the safety of the citizenry.
3) Banning means a total ban sales going forward and those that have it must turn those weapons in. Or be subject to criminal and civil penalties. My opinion is consistent, no one should have these types of weapons.
4) If you are a law abiding gun owner, you should have no problem with a national registry of ownership and ballistics identifier information on each weapon.
5) Oh I thought you were a Ronald Reagan fan.
6) I have no problem with gun owners. I grew up with guns in a house. But if you are truly responsible, you don't want these weapons in the wrong hands. You would want what is stated in point #4.
7) I know people with AR's and even they say that no one really should have these weapons. But, since they are legal, they want it. Even Joe Manchin says he doesn't see the need for anyone to have an AR. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics/manchin-gun-purchase-age-ar15s/index.html

 

[HALL85]

1) I would say that collectors can collect them as long as they are made inoperable and still registered.
2) You made fun of my example of Tony Montana and then gave the Tony Montana example back to me as a justification. lol. How many legitimate people are worried about a band of people coming into their home? IS this Purge? Now I can see organized crime guys having this fear.

Tony Montana…more nonsense. I gave you one example. You want another? I live in a neighborhood that has a high crime rate…they know I have one, they may be less likely to break in to find out if it’s my weapon of choice…we can do this all night.

2) Firing at the range can be fun. I get it. It is fun to fire an M-16 as well. but, that is a guilty pleasure that must accede to the safety of the citizenry.

Why if I keep it in a safe and operate it at a licensed range?

3) Banning means a total ban sales going forward and those that have it must turn those weapons in. Or be subject to criminal and civil penalties. My opinion is consistent, no one should have these types of weapons.

You have a better chance of solving world hunger. That’s never going to happen like me asking for mandatory sentencing no ifs ands or buts.

4) If you are a law abiding gun owner, you should have no problem with a national registry of ownership and ballistics identifier information on each weapon.

Personally, I think the registry is a good thing. What’s the penalty for noncompliance? And are you going to enforce it?

5) Oh I thought you were a Ronald Reagan fan.

He was a good President. I value leadership not party identity.

6) I have no problem with gun owners. I grew up with guns in a house. But if you are truly responsible, you don't want these weapons in the wrong hands.

No one wants them in the wrong hands….silly point.

You would want what is stated in point #4.
7) I know people with AR's and even they say that no one really should have these weapons. But, since they are legal, they want it.

LOL

You seem fixated on the AR 15. What’s your opinion of what just happened in Philadelphia?

 

[Hallsome]

I went over all your reasons. No real hunter hunts with an assault weapon. Do you know of any? You did not reply. As far as self defense, you think it is better when an intruder is coming in your house to go into the locked cabinet unlock it, get your magazine and grab that AR as opposed to reaching over the nightstand and grabbing. a handgun? So no it is not great for self defense. So there are no reasons where there exists as good alternatives or better . How many times do you want me to address this?

These weapons were designed to kill people. It is designed for war. I gave you what can be done with gun control to stop this. Ban all assault weapons, and a national registry and database for all firearms. You do these two things, You have yourself a safer society. Neither one violates the second amendment. Why is anyone against this? Moreover, if any person truly calls themselves a conservative, Ronald Regan backed the assault weapons ban.

Regan not conservative

 

[knowknow456]

sometimes taking baby steps is better than taking no steps at all.

Herein lies the problem. It's almost impossible to support gun rights and baby steps. Ask any smoker how their life has changed over the last 30 years.

 

[cernjSHU]

Regan not conservative

Oh really? I guess Goldwater wasn’t either.

 

[cernjSHU]

Tony Montana…more nonsense. I gave you one example. You want another? I live in a neighborhood that has a high crime rate…they know I have one, they may be less likely to break in to find out if it’s my weapon of choice…we can do this all night.

Why if I keep it in a safe and operate it at a licensed range?

You have a better chance of solving world hunger. That’s never going to happen like me asking for mandatory sentencing no ifs ands or buts.

Personally, I think the registry is a good thing. What’s the penalty for noncompliance? And are you going to enforce it?

He was a good President. I value leadership not party identity.

No one wants them in the wrong hands….silly point.

LOL

You seem fixated on the AR 15. What’s your opinion of what just happened in Philadelphia?

I would assume all people have the AR in a safe or ina place not readily open. That’s why it’s not good for self defense of a home. Also, the high velocity of the ammo makes it dangerous for anyone else within the house to get injured.

Obviously, having an assault weapon and or breaking the registration would carry mandatory incarceration which would run consecutively to the umderlyong crime. We are talking about 10 years or more in jail on top of the underlying crime.

What happened in Philly is awful. However, this would be a perfect example of how registration would work. We could trace back to the owner based on ballistics if the ha guns that were used. That person who was last in ownership and did not register the transfer would also be criminally liable as well as the murderers.

Guns are too easily transfers and sold to people who should not have guns. We need to trace all transfers of firearms. It is the only way to stop this black market of illegal guns. Remember, where did these guns come from? Theoretically, it. Came from an legal gun owner somewhere down the road.

Anyone in possession of a ghost gun should be sentenced to at least 5-10 years in jail and has to serve 85%.

 

[afghan whigs]

People in Chicago are mainly using handguns not assault rifles to murder daily. If they ban assault rifles then they will want to ban handguns next. Of course this will not stop the shootings.

Trying to solve a symptom of the cultural disease through legislation and not tackling the cause will result in failure. Criminals and the deranged will still get guns. You can not legislate morality. Amazing that Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16 while increasing the age to own a gun to 21.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[SPK145]

These weapons were designed to kill people. It is designed for war.

The military doesn't use AR-15's, they would get decimated if they did.

 

[SHUSA]

The military doesn't use AR-15's, they would get decimated if they did.

you know who invented the AR-15? you know why?

 

[SPK145]

you know who invented the AR-15? you know why?

Yes, years and years ago, they are no longer military arms.

99.99999999% of AR-15 owners are responsible gun owners. So you want to take away their guns because of the 0.000000001% that don't use them responsibly? Yeah, that's common sense.

 

[SHUSA]

Yes, years and years ago, they are no longer military arms.

99.99999999% of AR-15 owners are responsible gun owners. So you want to take away their guns because of the 0.000000001% that don't use them responsibly? Yeah, that's common sense.

no, but general citizens arent current military either. youre comparing A-15 to modern military enemies, why? you think Uvalde elementary kids are comparable ? they were designed by military to roast people. last time i checked citizens havent evolved into having armor skin. were the same as back when the military invented it. ridiculous to even spin it that way

 

[SPK145]

no, but general citizens arent current military either. youre comparing A-15 to modern military enemies, why? you think Uvalde elementary kids are comparable ? they were designed by military to roast people. last time i checked citizens havent evolved into having armor skin. were the same as back when the military invented it. ridiculous to even spin it that way

All we read is that these are weapons of war. W not. That’s the point.

 

[SHUSA]

All we read is that these are weapons of war. W not. That’s the point.

the weapon was built for war. just because they have invented better killing machines doesnt mean its no longer a killing machine

 

[HALL85]

the weapon was built for war. just because they have invented better killing machines doesnt mean its no longer a killing machine

It doesn’t matter what they were built for. Responsible gun owners have them for many legitimate reasons and use them lawfully.

 

[SHUSA]

It doesn’t matter what they were built for. Responsible gun owners have them for many legitimate reasons and use them lawfully.

so why cant responsible owners own other weapons designed by the military? 99% of them are responsible right?

 

[cernjSHU]

The military doesn't use AR-15's, they would get decimated if they did.

What is the difference between an AR-15 and M-16? The biggest difference is that the M-16 has the abilty to go fully automatic. The AR-15 was designed for the military and for war. Just because they were able to make even better killing weapons doesn't take away from the fact that these weapons are designed to kill people.

 

[cernjSHU]

It doesn’t matter what they were built for. Responsible gun owners have them for many legitimate reasons and use them lawfully.

Yes like shooting prairie dogs. They are just making up shit now.

 

[Hall-O-Daze]

Like I said, this country has already made its choice. We've collectively decided we're more or less okay with this - otherwise, we'd do something. So, we kinda get what we asked for. Bloody hands. Rinse and repeat.

Cue the next mass shooting in which the weapon was designed for military use, and to mow down as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's just going to keep happening.

 

[HALL85]

so why cant responsible owners own other weapons designed by the military? 99% of them are responsible right?

They do…what’s your point?

 

[HALL85]

Yes like shooting prairie dogs. They are just making up shit now.

Another tantrum…ignoring the legitimate reasons once again….wahhhh

 

[SHUSA]

They do…what’s your point?

all of them? wheres the cutoff and why?

 

[cernjSHU]

Here is a question?

How do you know someone is a responsible gun owner? Is there a required training or test to own any firearm or for that matter an AR-15? How do you know what is the percentage of gun owners are responsible gun owners? I keep hearing that we are going to ban AR-15 only due to the four wack jobs a year. How many people that currently own AR-15 are wack jobs? No one knows these answers. But I would bet that there are far more than 4 wack jobs in the country that have AR-15. They just haven’t acted - yet.

Since it would be a hardship to take away assault weapons from responsible people. Yes sure some people are responsible and some people are irresponsible. Not wack jobs. Just irresponsible. Leaving the weapon accesible to children. Not handling the weapon in a safe way.

The only answer from you guys is to raise the age and of course. the let’s just arm everyone seems to be the right’s answer. Arm the teachers, arm everyone. Only thing that stops the bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Looks like the answer on the right is to return to the Wild Wild West.

 

[HALL85]

Here is a question?

How do you know someone is a responsible gun owner? Is there a required training or test to own any firearm or for that matter an AR-15? How do you know what is the percentage of gun owners are responsible gun owners? I keep hearing that we are going to ban AR-15 only due to the four wack jobs a year. How many people that currently own AR-15 are wack jobs? No one knows these answers. But I would bet that there are far more than 4 wack jobs in the country that have AR-15. They just haven’t acted - yet.

Since it would be a hardship to take away assault weapons from responsible people. Yes sure some people are responsible and some people are irresponsible. Not wack jobs. Just irresponsible. Leaving the weapon accesible to children. Not handling the weapon in a safe way.

The only answer from you guys is to raise the age and of course. the let’s just arm everyone seems to be the right’s answer. Arm the teachers, arm everyone. Only thing that stops the bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Looks like the answer on the right is to return to the Wild Wild West.

Do you enjoy typing these rants? Questions that can’t be answered; Falsely putting your words in other peoples mouths to make your point. Has anyone suggested arming teachers???

 

[cernjSHU]

Do you enjoy typing these rants? Questions that can’t be answered; Falsely putting your words in other peoples mouths to make your point. Has anyone suggested arming teachers???

First, You have not heard Republicans saying we should arm teachers? I hear this coming from the right all the time.

Second, that’s the point of those questions. You have no idea how many unstable people have these weapons. You have no idea how many untrained unsafe gun owners are there.

If you want to dismiss it as a rant, it’s ok with me. It’s your fall back when you just want to ignore things.

 

[SPK145]

First, You have not heard Republicans saying we should arm teachers? I hear this coming from the right all the time.

I’ve seen one article where sone whacko says to arm the students, as young as 8.

 

[HALL85]

First, You have not heard Republicans saying we should arm teachers? I hear this coming from the right all the time.

Second, that’s the point of those questions. You have no idea how many unstable people have these weapons. You have no idea how many untrained unsafe gun owners are there.

If you want to dismiss it as a rant, it’s ok with me. It’s your fall back when you just want to ignore things.

You’re making statements and asking questions of people on this board. I’m not going to respond for a party.

If I don’t know, why ask the questions? Just to make you feel better?

 

[SPK145]

 

[Pirata]

This is an interesting bit of gun history.

Winchester 1907 had a 20 round magazine and fired as fast as an AR-15 with a more powerful round. Its been around for 112 years and never used in a mass shooting. Remington made a similar model. It was designed for sport use and later adopted by police.

My question is why and how did society evolve to using guns for mass shootings?

This comment string is floating around the internet:

"A 112 years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.

• This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalog and have delivered via USPS. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
• About 60,000 of these were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these semi-auto rifles for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
• The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
• The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.
• The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isn't new in any way.
• The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
• The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed."

'

 

[cernjSHU]

This is an interesting bit of gun history.

Winchester 1907 had a 20 round magazine and fired as fast as an AR-15 with a more powerful round. Its been around for 112 years and never used in a mass shooting. Remington made a similar model. It was designed for sport use and later adopted by police.

My question is why and how did society evolve to using guns for mass shootings?

This comment string is floating around the internet:

"A 112 years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.

• This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalog and have delivered via USPS. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
• About 60,000 of these were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these semi-auto rifles for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
• The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
• The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.
• The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isn't new in any way.
• The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
• The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed."

'

60,000 were produced over a 50 yr period. Many of that went to police agencies in the 1930's. Not many civilians had this weapon. Contrast that to 20 million AR-15 style weapons in today's world.

Interesting, Fox had a poll that had 62% of people are in favor of an assault weapons ban.

 

[HALL85]

60,000 were produced over a 50 yr period. Many of that went to police agencies in the 1930's. Not many civilians had this weapon. Contrast that to 20 million AR-15 style weapons in today's world.

Interesting, Fox had a poll that had 62% of people are in favor of an assault weapons ban.

Yet, there is no proposed legislation to ban anything. It’s really a nonstarter that neither side wants to take a position.

 

[cernjSHU]

Yet, there is no proposed legislation to ban anything. It’s really a nonstarter that neither side wants to take a position.

It’s a nonstarter because there is little to no chance to get anything done on legislation if the Dems push the assault weapons ban. The Republicans will just not be part of it. I am of the belief that they should push it. However, they are desperate to look like they are doing something in the wake of these shootings. Even if that something is very little.

 

[HALL85]

It’s a nonstarter because there is little to no chance to get anything done on legislation if the Dems push the assault weapons ban. The Republicans will just not be part of it. I am of the belief that they should push it. However, they are desperate to look like they are doing something in the wake of these shootings. Even if that something is very little.

Even most Democrats know it would be a stupid idea and are secretly against it.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Yet, there is no proposed legislation to ban anything. It’s really a nonstarter that neither side wants to take a position.

It's better to fight about something for political points than solve the issue.

 

[cernjSHU]

Even most Democrats know it would be a stupid idea and are secretly against it.

Banning assault weapons is not a stupid idea and Dems are for it. How did you assess that they are secretly against it? Over 62% of the country are in favor of a ban. This is something that needs to get done as most people realize how inane it is to have assault weapons in the hands of people.

 

[cernjSHU]

It's better to fight about something for political points than solve the issue.

And what is your solution since you are against the ban?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

And what is your solution since you are against the ban?

My solution is simple, listen to experts. Get a bunch of experts on the situation to solve the problem. Not someone connected to a political party. Not someone's kid because they donate a lot to party. Get real experts in there and solve it.

I'm for a ban of these weapons if you can get every one off the street. Last thing we need is a bad guy with one and no good guys with any. It would be amazing to find out how many criminals don't go near a house with a homeowner owning an assault weapon. Shouldn't that be considered too? How many lives are saved that way? I think in today's world you can live within the second amendment and don't necessarily need the assault rifle. That would put some limits on the 2nd amendement. There should also be some limits on the 4th amendment too. Unfortunately you'll cry about some modernizing of the 4th amendment, but smile with glee when it comes to modernizing the second amendment.

 

[HALL85]

Banning assault weapons is not a stupid idea and Dems are for it. How did you assess that they are secretly against it? Over 62% of the country are in favor of a ban. This is something that needs to get done as most people realize how inane it is to have assault weapons in the hands of people.

I meant Democratic political leaders.

 

[cernjSHU]

My solution is simple, listen to experts. Get a bunch of experts on the situation to solve the problem. Not someone connected to a political party. Not someone's kid because they donate a lot to party. Get real experts in there and solve it.

I'm for a ban of these weapons if you can get every one off the street. Last thing we need is a bad guy with one and no good guys with any. It would be amazing to find out how many criminals don't go near a house with a homeowner owning an assault weapon. Shouldn't that be considered too? How many lives are saved that way? I think in today's world you can live within the second amendment and don't necessarily need the assault rifle. That would put some limits on the 2nd amendement. There should also be some limits on the 4th amendment too. Unfortunately you'll cry about some modernizing of the 4th amendment, but smile with glee when it comes to modernizing the second amendment.

Modernizing the Second Amendment? I am not sure what you mean by modernizing. However, banning assault weapons does not violate the second amendment. So that is not really a factor. Moreover, there are limits on the 4th Amendment. The greatest protection of the 4th Amendment is to be free from the government searching your home unless they have a search warrant backed by probable cause.

However, even here, there are exceptions to the great protection that citizens have with the 4th Amendment. There can be exigent circumstances which dictate the police go inside a house without a warrant. For example, police chasing a person who just committed an armed robbery in hot pursuit. There could be community care taking reasons like a family member asking the police to check on elderly parents who they have not heard from. So,there is not an absolute protection from your house to be free from searches without a warrant. So, what you call my "crying" is just US Constitutional law.

Btw, you do not have any solutions but it does seem that you would be in favor of a ban on assault weapons which makes perfect sense.